>New and Improved Cheap And Easy Ways To Raise Your Value To A Girl.

Recently, “game” guru Roissy offered his readers a list of “Cheap And Easy Ways To Raise Your Value To A Girl.” Most were fairly standard pick up artist tricks of the “act like an aloof jerk and she’ll worship you” variety. According to Roissy, though, these little tricks will miraculously enable guys

to date women one to three points higher than you could be expected to get by societal standards. Do these to a girlfriend and you will be a god to her. A god among penii.

A few examples:

Don’t call back right away. Done properly, you will start to hear girls say things like “I didn’t hear back from you. You were making me nervous!”

Don’t live together. It’s much harder to project mystery living under the same roof, watching each other fold laundry every week. (Not to mention side action will be more difficult to coordinate.)

Never laugh at her jokes, even when they’re funny. If you must, chuckle under your breath.

When at her place, eat all her food, leave the seat up, change her TV channels, and torture her cat. Act like it’s your second home.

Bo-ring. These tricks may have worked on women once upon a time, but today’s women are far too sophisticated to fall for these tired old ruses . If you really want to score with the hot babes of today, you’ve got to kick your game up a notch — or three. To help, I have come up with some “New and Improved Cheap And Easy Ways To Raise Your Value To A Girl.”

Wear a banana peel on your head like a hat. This will help to create an aura of “mystery” around yourself, as well as a lovely banana-y scent that will follow you everywhere.

Poke her nose playfully after sex and say, in a cheerful voice, “Hitler was right about you!” She will ponder this one for days.

Never laugh at her jokes. Instead, fall to the floor and begin singing “Rock Me Amadeus.”

Go out on “dates” with imaginary people. Introduce her to these people, and slyly suggest a “threesome.” (Or a “foursome,” if you are dating two imaginary people at the same time.)

Muse wistfully about butter.

Don’t buy her gifts. Instead, sneak clumps of dirt into her lingerie drawer.

Never call her back right away. Instead, hide under her bed and make low moaning sounds.

If you end up in an argument with her, shout out “mom always loved you better!” Then set her couch on fire.

Don’t move in with her. Instead, move into the apartment above hers, and watch her through tiny holes drilled in the floor.

When at her place, eat her cat, torture her TV, and replace her toilet with a sack of potatoes. Act like Meryl Streep in Sophie’s Choice, including the accent.

Go forth, my young apprentices, and score like never before!

—

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

Comments

>I think what gets some folks' hackles up, however, is the way most PUA's, MRA's and MGTOW's try to portray women's aging as a personality flaw, or some kind of divine punishment, rather than the result of a physiological process that affects everyone.Or that women's aging is something that women opt to do with malice aforethought.

>I've never heard an MRA or PUA acribe 'malice' or any sort of moral wrongness to aging, though they do to plenty of other things. Their argument is simply a matter of evolutionary biology, no more, no less. Women primarily derive their value from their physical appearance and fertility, which decline with age. Men, on the other hand, derive their value from a wide variety of things, of which physical appearance and fertility are a much smaller part. The simple, logical result of that is men are hit much less hard than women are by Time's merciless march. They're not "blaming" women for aging poorly, but then again, they don't "blame" snow for being cold or bees for stinging. The facts of reality are what they are, in their view, though of course you and similar commentators like Jadehawk, IIRC, may disagree, or claim it's all changeable "social reality," or whatever. Natural selection is not only blind and cruel, but also unfathomably stupid. Blame it for making you part of a species condemned to be separated into two genders, one inferior in nearly every respect to the other.

>Ugh, fuck. It cut off the second part of my comment. My apologies. The second paragraph should read like this: Again, the evo-bio school of thought is much more common among MRAs and PUAs, and especially among folks like Roissy. As they might say, natural selection is not only blind and cruel, but also unfathomably stupid. Blame it for making you part of a species condemned to be separated into two genders, one inferior in nearly every respect to the other. And one of the most notable respects in which women are inferior to men is in the effects aging has on them. Few PUAs or MRAs would impute moral value to this, they would simply say it's a biological fact in the same way bees stinging or fish needing water to breath is a biological fact.

>And the evo-bio school of thought that they subscribe to (which leads to men's sexual prowess and/or experience being valued and young women's lack thereof being valued) also helps to uphold the "double standard" (at least in Western culture, but that's not to say that double standards don't exist in other cultures) that labels older men going after younger girls as creeps (or other labels) and that same label or similar labels not being applied to older women with younger men.I know that many MRAs want older females who select young males to be viewed as sexual predators just as older males who select younger females are, but that probably won't happen so long as male sexual prowess and female's (especially when young and unmarried) lack thereof are valued.I've never heard an MRA or PUA acribe 'malice' or any sort of moral wrongness to aging, though they do to plenty of other thingsPerhaps we have read different "authors", but I have often come across reference to women's aging which sounds quite similar to some comments (not necessarily from MRA/MGTOW/PUA circles) surrounding a woman's pregnancy (i.e., "She went and got herself pregnant") which gives the impression of willful choice.

>It cut off a portion of my second paragraph, read my second post. I'm merely restating what the MRAs and PUAs believe;Good thing that you caught that and posted the cut off portion, otherwise it wasn't too clear that you were restating what MRAs and PUAs believe vs. giving your own opinion.I'm not one of them. Though as I've mentioned before, I'm not a feminist either.That's cool with me, as I don't believe that people fall under strict dichotomies.

>My own opinion? I suppose I'm an agnostic on the matter. "Superior" and "inferior" are meaningless words in an entirely naturalistic context; there is only what's adaptive to an environment and what's not.Outside of a purely scientific context, though…well, even if I did believe women were inferior to men overall, I doubt you, our gracious host, or any of the other feminists here would bother refuting it, though perhaps you'd offer some 'snark' to amuse yourselves. Nothing wrong with that, as we've all got our own things to be concerned about. In any case, my apologies for taking your time.

>@RomanCandle:The fact that you wouldn't abuse YOUR cats is neither here nor there. The point of Roissy's "advice" isn't to torture animals, per se — the point is subjecting a woman to extreme psychological pain by defiling her home, destroying her property and inflicting physical suffering on a living creature that she loves and that acts as her companion. The point is to torture her and to isolate her. It doesn't have to be a cat; it can be any small and defenseless creature, up to and including a child.Does it "work"? I am not into wishful thinking, so I will admit that this approach is effective to the same extent that any other type of torture is effective for certain purposes. I won't deny that destroying and profaning everything a person holds dear has been known to work in getting that person to degrade him or herself. If enough men keep treating things and creatures that are important to a woman as worthless pieces of shit, she'll eventually come to value nothing in her life except male attention, even if it manifests itself in disrespectful and destructive ways. But the mere fact that a "technique" works, doesn't justify using it, in the same way that the fact that torture gets the torturer what he wants doesn't justify torture. Acting this way towards people is utterly disgusting, and I don't see how anyone who claims to have been nice (as opposed to merely timid) can defend it.And no, I don't find plausible the calim that feminists are somehow most susceptible to these practices. On the contrary, for all that PUA's blame feminism for their own porcine behavior, it is in fact women who are brought up with a traditional outlook on gender roles — the desire to please and appease at all costs, the belief that antagonizing suitors is "bitchy" and unladylike, the conviction that mistreatment by men, no matter the context, is always — ALWAYS — just deserts for something the victims did or didn't do, and a sense of self-worth that's entirely contingent on male validation — those women are most vulnerable to this kind of abuse. Plus, I suppose, women who are too young to have learned that there is a whole subculture of men who treat dating and relationships like warfare, in which girlfriends are "the enemy" who must be destroyed. Women who believe their value as individuals doesn't hinge on male approval, and who are trained to spot phony or creepy behavior are a lot less likely to end up sleeping with men who openly despise them.

>Women who believe their value as individuals doesn't hinge on male approval, and who are trained to spot phony or creepy behavior are a lot less likely to end up sleeping with men who openly despise them. Considering how much success guys like Roissy and Tucker Max have had in bedding self-proclaimed feminists, I wonder if I could be forgiven for questioning the veracity of this claim.

>> "Superior" and "inferior" are meaningless words in an entirely naturalistic context; there is only what's adaptive to an environment and what's not.Hang on, it's species that adapt, not sexes of species (not sure if that's what you were trying to say, but that's how it reads)Sex A of a species cannot independently evolve to be better adapted than the sex B of the same species, because they have the same genome.For example, with respect to evolutionary biology, the queen bee of a given species is neither more or less adapted than drones or workers of the same species. The species cannot function without queens, drones, and workers, and is under evolutionary pressure not to permit queens, drones, and workers to mutate into competing species.Same thing with humans. The sexes can't compete with each other for reproductive success, since they don't have independent reproductive success.Competition between individuals for mates is part of sexual selection, not natural selection, and the traits selected for by sexual selection are not necessarily adaptive–but they get selected for anyway.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection

>Hang on, it's species that adapt, not sexes of species (not sure if that's what you were trying to say, but that's how it reads)Well, you're right, but what I meant to say was that "superior" and "inferior" imply value judgements meaningless in a naturalistic context. There is only whether or not you pass on your genes, perhaps would be a better way to put it. Now, of course, we needn't go by *only* scientific definitions, of course. The MRAs might argue that women are "inferior" to men in all the ways that matter to human beings, even if they still manage to reproduce. Still, as I said, I suppose I'm looking in the wrong place if I wanted to hear a refutation of that. Again, pardon me for wasting your time.

“Why’d you break up with him?”
“He never called me back, kept cancelling dates, and constantly talked about his exes. He never laughed at my jokes except sometimes, when he’d make this weird, guttural suppressed-laughter noise. He ate all my food and abused my cat. Also, he referred to men as ‘penii.'”

We Hunted the Mammoth tracks and mocks the white male rage underlying the rise of Trump and Trumpism. This blog is NOT a safe space; given the subject matter -- misogyny and hate -- there's really no way it could be.